I will Believe the Book of Mormon as history when...

[_Gadianton]

Apologists often get after critics asking, "What would it take to convince you?" They intone that critics are set to disbelieve the Book of Mormon no matter how compelling the evidence. We'll limit the convincing in this discussion to the historical reality of the Book of Mormon.

Apologists are also fond of pointing out that virtually none of us critics are qualified to dispute the Book of Mormon historical claims or evaluate apologist arguments which rely on historical or language knowledge.

I'm fine with this. The day the Smithsonian Institute accepts the Book of Mormon as an authentic historical document, I'll believe it is real history, I'll defer to their expert judgement.

Oh Oh! I hear a tornado...no, it's not a tornado, but the apologists all bent out of shape, desperate to tell me that the Smithsonian doesn't have the requisite Book of Mormon specific knowledge to pass judgement either.

So who does? Only the apologists. According to them, we must take the apologists at their word because they are the only ones on the planet with both the historical and the Book of Mormon specific knowledge to make a fair assessment. Ha ha.

It doesn't quite work that way, unfortunately, for the apologist. See, it's not really my problem that you amateurs can't convince the Smithsonian or any other serious academic institution to take the Book of Mormon seriously. If you really have something, you'll probably eventually win out. So quit arguing with us nobodies.

When Einstein presented his theories, many of them seemed quite radical and contradicted the best scientific wisdom of the day. It wasn't a quck kill, even for some of the greatest discoveries in history. But did Einstein start his own magazine, complete with dice-loaded peer-reviewing and peddle subscriptions to an audience mainly of laymen in order to bolster his credibility? Did he begin selling memberships to a club where large donations promoted one through the ranks of "Invariance", "Brownian", and "Gravitational Super Mass" status?

Flashing back a hundred years prior to Einstein, poor Gregor Mendel didn't even receive his due acceptence while living. It's unfortunate. but if ya really got something, it will probably eventually win out. And did Mendel spend his time on a listserve launching attacks against a host of laymen unqualified to critique his work?

The moral of the story is, FARMS has far, far, far more money and resources than Einstein or Mendel had. The church's wealth overshadows the funding of any scientist who ever lived. If it could pay 500,000,000 dollars to prove the to the scholarly world that the Book of Mormon is true history, it would start selling of temples tommorow. There is no excuse. If the apologists really have something worth taking seriously, they need to re-tool their efforts and put hard work, money, and frustration into convincing their peers.

Instead, like the advocates of intelligent design, they hope to exert their influence through public opinion, through the lay reader and the unqualified partisan. Deep down, they KNOW they can't win the academic war, but they just might win enough schoolyard battles to serve a temporary boost for the cause in a culture war.

No excuses boys, when the Smithsonian believes it, I will.

[_collegeterrace]

I was always taught that God wants us to find the evidence in our hearts not our eyes.

I did have a seminary teacher who claimed he had Lamanite arrowheads from the Hill Cumorah though.. it was kinda weird he had them in a special suitcase with really thick glass over the arrow heads when you opened the suitcase.

He got quite teary eyed and bore his testimony about the arrowheads. That was my ninth grade year and I did not see him in seminary the next three years afterwards.

I read the Book of Mormon twice but dunno if I have a really true and strong testimony yet, espicailly after watching that temple demo vid! The book is just kinda hard to read and is boring(hope its ok to say that).

But I have til next June/July before my mission to firm it up.

[_Daniel Peterson]

According to them, we must take the apologists at their word

I must have missed that memo.

If you really have something, you'll probably eventually win out. So quit arguing with us nobodies.

Sound advice. The overwhelming majority of scholarly "apologists," of course, spend little or no time on message boards, and only a handful of them have even heard of this particular one.

But I'm a sad exception to the rule, and I take your counsel very seriously.

But did Einstein start his own magazine, complete with dice-loaded peer-reviewing and peddle subscriptions to an audience mainly of laymen in order to bolster his credibility?

LOL! No! He didn't! He submitted them for publication to a journal without any peer-review at all!

As I pointed out in my Editor's Introduction to FARMS Review 18/2 (2006), entitled "The Witchcraft Paradigm: On Claims to 'Second Sight' by People Who Say It Doesn't Exist,"

Although they are generally considered, now, to have laid the foundations of modern physics, not a single one of the four so-called Annus mirabilis ("year of miracles") papers that Einstein published in the Annalen der Physik in 1905—neither "Über einen die Erzeugung und Verwandlung des Lichtes betreffenden heuristischen Gesichtspunk" (On a Heuristic Viewpoint concerning the Production and Transformation of Light), for which he later received the Nobel Prize; nor "Über die von der molekularkinetischen Theorie der Wärme geforderte Bewegung von in ruhenden Flüssigkeiten suspendierten Teilchen" (On the Motion—Required by the Molecular Kinetic Theory of Heat—of Small Particles Suspended in a Stationary Liquid); nor "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper" (On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies), which introduced the Special Theory of Relativity; nor "Ist die Trägheit eines Körpers von seinem Energieinhalt abhängig?" (Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy Content?), in which he suggested that E=mc2—received anything even remotely resembling modern academic peer review. They were all simply approved by the journal's editor. Yet some folks think they were pretty good, nonetheless.

http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/revie ... m=2&id=621

If the apologists really have something worth taking seriously, they need to re-tool their efforts and put hard work, money, and frustration into convincing their peers.

The Maxwell Institute or FARMS has published well over one hundred volumes, and scores of periodicals. It's not as if the people affiliated with the organization have been sitting on their hands.

Instead, like the advocates of intelligent design, they hope to exert their influence through public opinion, through the lay reader and the unqualified partisan.

By distributing books through the University of Chicago Press, displaying them at the annual national meetings of the Society of Biblical Literature and the American Academy of Religion, and similar attempts at concealment?

No excuses boys, when the Smithsonian believes it, I will.

I'll pass your promise on to my colleagues. I have little doubt that, when they hear it, they'll redouble their efforts.

[_Mister Scratch]

Gee, Gad, I don't know. I don't know if this is really a fair request. I mean, suppose the Smithsonian was given full access to the Church archives. Suppose that, in the process of doing so, they found out that Joseph Smith really did try to translate the Kinderhook Plates, and that BY formally ordered the MMM. Do you really think that TBMs would overhaul their views? No; of course they wouldn't. Somehow, the apologists would figure out a way to paint the Smithsonian as being "anti-Mormon."

[_Ray A]

The moral of the story is, FARMS has far, far, far more money and resources than Einstein or Mendel had. The church's wealth overshadows the funding of any scientist who ever lived. If it could pay 500,000,000 dollars to prove the to the scholarly world that the Book of Mormon is true history, it would start selling of temples tommorow. There is no excuse. If the apologists really have something worth taking seriously, they need to re-tool their efforts and put hard work, money, and frustration into convincing their peers.

Instead, like the advocates of intelligent design, they hope to exert their influence through public opinion, through the lay reader and the unqualified partisan. Deep down, they KNOW they can't win the academic war, but they just might win enough schoolyard battles to serve a temporary boost for the cause in a culture war.

No excuses boys, when the Smithsonian believes it, I will.

I pointed out before that my recollection is that Dan believes the Book of Mormon is a "50-50" proposition. He believes the Book of Mormon was designed that way, so if you had the "desire to believe" (as per Alma 32), and "let that desire work upon you", you'll be convinced. He also believes there are enough circumstantial evidences to support it, some internal, some external. If my understanding is wrong, Dan can correct me.

I don't ever recall him saying or writing anything even remotely like "the world will be convinced if they look at the evidence". Think of Alma 29:

1 O that I were an angel, and could have the wish of mine heart, that I might go forth and speak with the Trump of God, with a voice to shake the earth, and cry repentance unto every people!
2 Yea, I would declare unto every soul, as with the voice of thunder, repentance and the plan of redemption, that they should repent and come unto our God, that there might not be more sorrow upon all the face of the earth.
3 But behold, I am a man, and do sin in my wish; for I ought to be content with the things which the Lord hath allotted unto me.
4 I ought not to harrow up in my desires, the firm decree of a just God, for I know that he granteth unto men according to their desire, whether it be unto death or unto life; yea, I know that he allotteth unto men, yea, decreeth unto them decrees which are unalterable, according to their wills, whether they be unto salvation or unto destruction.
5 Yea, and I know that good and evil have come before all men; he that knoweth not good from evil is blameless; but he that knoweth good and evil, to him it is given according to his desires, whether he desireth good or evil, life or death, joy or remorse of conscience.
6 Now, seeing that I know these things, why should I desire more than to perform the work to which I have been called?
7 Why should I desire that I were an angel, that I could speak unto all the ends of the earth?
8 For behold, the Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word, yea, in wisdom, all that he seeth fit that they should have; therefore we see that the Lord doth counsel in wisdom, according to that which is just and true.

I think this is the "context" Dan operates from. This isn't a case of "proving" the Book of Mormon, nor being financed $500 million to do so. That would defeat the very premise of Alma 29.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Gee, Gad, I don't know. I don't know if this is really a fair request. I mean, suppose the Smithsonian was given full access to the Church archives. Suppose that, in the process of doing so, they found out that Joseph Smith really did try to translate the Kinderhook Plates, and that BY formally ordered the MMM. Do you really think that TBMs would overhaul their views? No; of course they wouldn't. Somehow, the apologists would figure out a way to paint the Smithsonian as being "anti-Mormon."

Well, there you have it.

If that hypothetical situation doesn't damn the apologists, what on earth will?

[_Some Schmo]

Gee, Gad, I don't know. I don't know if this is really a fair request. I mean, suppose the Smithsonian was given full access to the Church archives. Suppose that, in the process of doing so, they found out that Joseph Smith really did try to translate the Kinderhook Plates, and that BY formally ordered the MMM. Do you really think that TBMs would overhaul their views? No; of course they wouldn't. Somehow, the apologists would figure out a way to paint the Smithsonian as being "anti-Mormon."

Well, there you have it.

If that hypothetical situation doesn't damn the apologists, what on earth will?

Apologists don't need hypothetical situations to damn themselves. All they have to do is open their mouths and the damning takes care of itself.

[_Gadianton]

Ray,

I'm not an expert on the beliefs of the particular apologist you used as your example. I'm speaking generally about apologists as I've encountered them.

I can understand your objection, and it is a common one. I think just as often, your objection is used to hedge bets, however. "We don't believe that archeology can prove the Book of Mormon, so if we're wrong about this latest theory don't lose your faith!"

I will also note that historical theories in general are shaky, and the Smithsonian probably doesn't have 95% certainty in whatever theories they do believe constitute history. So, I'd be willing to revise my statement and say that, if the Smithsonian ever comes to believe the Book of Mormon has a 50% chance of being real history, I'll believe it has a 50% chance. So, you can see that my objection still holds in its entirety, even given lowered expectations.

The grass growing outside the windows of the apologists is green.

[_The Nehor]

The moral of the story is, FARMS has far, far, far more money and resources than Einstein or Mendel had. The church's wealth overshadows the funding of any scientist who ever lived. If it could pay 500,000,000 dollars to prove the to the scholarly world that the Book of Mormon is true history, it would start selling of temples tommorow. There is no excuse. If the apologists really have something worth taking seriously, they need to re-tool their efforts and put hard work, money, and frustration into convincing their peers.

Why would they want this to happen?

If we wanted to draw people like crazy we'd probably be better off with public displays of Priesthood power involving moving mountains, parting seas, etc. then focusing on academia. Instead there is a small organization that dedicated to it and they work independently to satisfy the curiosity of those who care about that kind of information. Those who care = a small minority of members and a much, much smaller minority of non-members.

Why in the world would we want to prove it? In the Old Testament that got Elijah nowhere.

[_Inconceivable]

Why in the world would we want to prove it? In the Old Testament that got Elijah nowhere.

Elijah was a prophet of the Mormon God, right?

The Mormon God is the same yesterday, today and forever, right?

Perhaps the apostates will need to cut themselves and howl at the moon first.

Even if the Book of Mormon becomes historically provable, it still doesn't make Smith a prophet. If anything, people will recognize how very much Smith held it's teachings with disdain - secret combinations, costly apparel, the polygamy deal, requiring the voice of the people, essentialness of charity, who to pray to for forgiveness, change of heart, integrity of giving one's word, leadership, contention, vengeance..

If he translated it, he never read it.

If he ever read it, he didn't understand it.

If he did actually understand it, he rarely emulated it.

It's a great book, even if it is a fiction. It still doesn't make Smith's or his church true.